Essex as a fifth part of the UK?

Can someone help me with a rather specialised AH scenario I want to develop?

Essex was one of the Saxon kingdoms of England until the early 800s , when it was dominated by Mercia and then subsumed into Wessex.

Is there any way that if could have survived as separate from the rest of England until the Norman Conquest (probably not as a independent state, but under foreign rule) and then survived onwards as a separate kingdom, in a personal union with the rest of England under the same monarchs - so that it continues to the present day as a fifth member of the UK, together with England, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland.

My first thoughts were that perhaps Sigeric (King of Essex 758-798) could have married a daughter off to one of the kings of Normandy, then I realised there weren't any Normans ruling Normandy until Rollo in the early 900s.

Can anyone help me with this one? I don't want any drastic alterations to English history, I'm hoping to have 20th century Britain almost -but not quite- the same as our timeline.
 
Wooo, that's a toughie, but so novel I just want to help. ;)

...Hmmm... Essex was always one of the smallest and weakest Saxon states, wasn't it? Keeping it independent of the others - let alone the Vikings - would be hard. Having it get grabbed by a foreign power - maybe Denmark? - does seem the best way to keep it separate.

Although 1000 years of butterflies would seem to mess up 20th C history quite a bit.
 
Thanks for taking an interest. Could maybe Charlemagne have grabbed Essex somehow for a while?

If I can make this work - This needn't make any obvious changes to Britain after the Norman Conquest - instead of being a county, it would be a Kingdom... but in name only. Obviously some people's lives and careers would be changed, but linguistically and culturally Essex would be very English.

However, in one particular type of history , events would diverge in 1872 , reaching a climax in the 1960s.
 

ninebucks

Banned
No, I don't think this could happen.

Essex is at the very core of the English nation, the idea of it staying separate, (especially if London is still the capital), is completely ASB.
 
It seems like from a geographic standpoint you'd have better luck trying to keep an independent East Anglia than an independent Essex.
 
Having Essex as the only exception is a bit odd as others have said, there's loads of other more likely places...
Maybe we could have Essex take over Kent and then the Pope somehow end up with Canterbury (ala Avignon). When England eventually does take over proper control for some reason they decide not to outright annex it (which they even did with wales....), some sort of deal with the church it would seem.
 
No, I don't think this could happen.

Essex is at the very core of the English nation, the idea of it staying separate, (especially if London is still the capital), is completely ASB.

Rats, maybe you are right. But I am looking for merely a separate notional existence , not much more than the way that some decrees were issued in the name of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Berwick. Same parliament , same language, same government. But enough so that at least some chaps in the 1870s still regard themselves as British, but from Essex rather than England.
 
Having Essex as the only exception is a bit odd as others have said, there's loads of other more likely places...
Maybe we could have Essex take over Kent and then the Pope somehow end up with Canterbury (ala Avignon). When England eventually does take over proper control for some reason they decide not to outright annex it (which they even did with wales....), some sort of deal with the church it would seem.

No, I want it annexed completely, integrated in the UK but just as a fifth component.
 
Thats not annexed.
Wales was annexed, it ceased to exist and became part of England.[/quote

It was politically annexed but it has had a continuous existence since then as a separate place to England. The same fate would do , for my purposes, for Essex.
 
Thats not annexed.
Wales was annexed, it ceased to exist and became part of England.[/quote

It was politically annexed but it has had a continuous existence since then as a separate place to England. The same fate would do , for my purposes, for Essex.

not really, legally there is no difference between England and Wales, they are the same country. Indeed, before the 1960's there wasn't really any mention of Wales in Law; England meant England and Wales. Even today Welsh devolution is on the same basis as London devolution, not that of Scotland or Northern Ireland.

There is a difference culturally but that's not the same.

I think the best you can get to is the sort of situation where Essex still calls itself the Kingdom of Essex on occasion, much as Fife does. It has no legal meaning but is a traditional thing which people still do
 
Rats, maybe you are right. But I am looking for merely a separate notional existence , not much more than the way that some decrees were issued in the name of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Berwick. Same parliament , same language, same government. But enough so that at least some chaps in the 1870s still regard themselves as British, but from Essex rather than England.

Difficult. The Normans tended to replace the existing anglo-saxon structures after their conquest of England. Does it have to be Essex ? County Durham/Northumberland maintained something of a seperate existance for a while after the Norman Conquest. Maybe there is a way that this could be extended without too many butterflies.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
The only way I can think you could remotely realistically do this is by establishing a northern kingdom as dominant in place of Wessex. But then you probably have a completely divergent development of Britain.

There's always the very intriguing possiblity of a Viking kingdom of 'Essex', though. God knows what would happen there.

It was politically annexed but it has had a continuous existence since then as a separate place to England.

But Wales only managed that by retaining a distinct culture from England. As others have said, legally/politically, it basically ceased to exist outside of England. How exactly do you suppose to effect the same with Essex? Surely you'd have to radically, and permanently alter the cultural landscape in the area? I can't really see how that could be done in the timescale we're talking about.

Essex was really just going to be completely subsumed into whatever established dominance of the south, simply because of it's geographical position.

Maybe there is a way that this could be extended without too many butterflies.

Durham and Northumberland only managed it because they were far from the capital and therefore difficult to rule. Hardly the case with Essex. No medieval king that I know of fostered particularism simply for romantic reasons.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys. I'll have to think of something else to write about.....

For what it's worth, I was aiming to write some alternative sporting history...
 
Top